Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. The team is Neil J. Wilkof, Annsley Merelle Ward, Darren Smyth, Nicola Searle, Eleonora Rosati, David Brophy, Alberto Bellan and Merpel, with contributions from Mark Schweizer. You're welcome to read, post comments and participate. You can email the Kats here

From October 2016 to March 2017 the team is joined by Guest Kats Rosie Burbidge and Eibhlin Vardy, and by InternKats Verónica Rodríguez Arguijo, Tian Lu and Hayleigh Bosher.

Monday, 9 November 2015

November is traditionally a busy time for the IP fraternity, as everyone starts planning how to clear their desks ahead of the winter break and/or the protracted Christmas office party season -- which takes its toll on many of even the most dedicated IPKat readers. That's why Alberto Bellan's weekly summary of substantive Katposts over the previous seven days is so greatly appreciated. Our dear and highly esteemed colleague has been in action again, with the 71st weekly compilation of gems from the recent past, and this is what he has found:

Darren discusses two Enlarged Board of Appeal decisions (R 0016/13 and R0002/15) rendered underArticle 112a EPC 2000, whereby a party can ask the Enlarged Board to review a decision of a Board of Appeal for an alleged fundamental procedural violation.

A few weeks ago, the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida had to determinewhether dance pop duo LMFAO had infringed rapper Rick Ross’s copyright by using catch-phrase ‘Everyday I’m Shufflin’’ for merchandising. Katfriend and IP enthusiast Nedim Malovic (Stockholm University) explains how this case went.

The issue of poisonous priorities (and poisonous divisionals) is the subject of a referral to the European Patent Office (EPO) Enlarged Board of Appealwhich is pending under reference G 1/15 [for those readers who are wondering how a priority can be poisonous, take a look at the IPKat here]. The EPO President has now decided to stay all proceedings before examination or opposition divisions where the outcome depends entirely on the answers that the Enlarged Board may give in G 1/15, David tells us.

TheNational Trust for Scotland (NTS), best known for its ownership of a large number of historically significant buildings and land -- very much tangible property -- is now expanding its portfolio in the intangible property sphere. Its aim is to use intellectual property to prevent the commercial exploitation of two of Scotland’s best known historical sites. Is it appropriate and legitimate for it to do so, wonders Katfriend Gill Grassie.

Katfriend Lindesay Low, who is Senior Legal Counsel to the Scotch Whisky Association, reports the opinion of Lord Glennie, sitting in the Outer House of the Court of Session in The Tartan Army Limited v Sett Gmbh, Oliver Reifler, Iain Emerson and Alba Football Fans Limited[2015] CSOH141, a trade mark infringement casethat contains an interesting discussion on when a director can be liable for the actions of his company.

Strong things here. In this worldwide Kat-exclusive, Eleonora leaks a copy of a draft communication from the Commission on a "modern, more European copyright framework". The Commission will soon take substantial steps towards harmonisation of geo-blocking and copyright limitations. When we say it’s “never too late”, we actually mean it.

At the European Patent Office (EPO), it may appear to the interested bystander that fielding a weakened team is to become a matter of official policy and that the Boards of Appeal are assumed to deliver better results when their numbers are depleted. Just like football (a.k.a. “soccer”, or those-22-guys-hardly-seeking-to-put-the-ball-inside-the-net), says Merpel.

Can a map be considered a database? This is the questions that the Court of Justice of the European Union answered in C-490/14 Verlag Esterbauer, a referral from the German Bundesgerichtshof in a dispute between the Freistaat Bayern and the publishing house Esterbauer concerning a map of Eponia Bavaria. Mark tells all.

Can one protect yoga poses through copyright? The US Court of Appeals aimed to answer this question in the case of Bikram Yoga College of India v Evolution Yoga, LLC, 2015 WL 5845415, as Jani explains in this post.

Darren posted a very brief note on the seminal substantive decision in the Lyrica case (seeherefor the post, containing links to the very lengthy history leading up to it). In these two posts, he turns to a more detailed review, taking validity first, and infringement second.

A couple of days ago New Zealand issued the full text of thefinal version of the TPP. Katfriend and tech law enthusiast Tom Dearden has read it for us, and we are delighted to host his lively analysis.

IPKat Policies

This page summarises the IPKat policies on guest submissions and comments. If you have posted a comment to one of our blogposts and it hasn't appeared, it may be because it doesn't match our criteria for moderation. To learn more about our guest submissions, comments and complaints policy and the procedure for lodging a complaint click here.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

Just click the magic box below and get this page translated into a bewildering selection of languages!